Does God have free will?

[Leox]

First of all, God is all-knowing. That means he knows everything including his own choices regardless of time.
If God has free will. He can choose to go against his knowledge of his own future actions. But then he is not all-knowing because he can't predict his own actions.
For example, God knew Adam will eat the fruit. But he decided to make Adam anyway. Thus God wasn't really punishing Adam out of God's own liking. But it was rather part of the script.

I guess this is a more philosophical problem but I want to know how it is handled in the setting of religion.

[Ataraxia]

We may think we freely select among alternatives

Yes, thinking. Awareness of the alternatives combined with whatever deterministic processes occurs within the brain equals "choice" insofar as humans can colloquially understand the concept. It's not true free will separate from all sequences of causes and effects, but anyone taking it that far must also be prepared to re-assess other charming concepts about the separateness of humans from other systems and from other larger properties of the universe.

[JehovahsWitness]

Meaningful only under the illusion that choosing is possible.

But free will isn't choosing, free will is the capacity to choose which exists if one has the capacity to understand what a choice is.

If you do not understand what a choice is, how can you come to a conclusion that nobody has any?

We can conclude a sea slug does not have free will, in part because he cannot participate in this thread discussing the topic.

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

It's often stated in the past tense as "the ability to have done differently"

There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused.

Again, this is irrelevant since free will exists independent of causality.

JW





RELATED POSTS


Can one choose to do the impossible?
viewtopic.php?p=1044685#p1044685

[Miles]

We may think we freely select among alternatives

Yes, thinking. Awareness of the alternatives combined with whatever deterministic processes occurs within the brain equals "choice" insofar as humans can colloquially understand the concept.

First of all, the alternatives are not true alternatives, only mistakenly perceived options that give the illusion of choice. Secondly, instead of "understand" I think a better description would be "believe."

It's not true free will separate from all sequences of causes and effects,

As an illusion free will is indeed tied to the consequence of the sequences of causes and effects. They're the genesis of the illusion. That and mankind's overwhelming compulsion to believe in free will.



.

[JehovahsWitness]

First of all, the alternatives are not true alternatives, only mistakenly perceived options that give the illusion of choice.

Free will is not dependent on whether a choice is real or perceived.

If Coke and Pepsi could sent out holograms of products that did not in reality exist, and a person chose the Coke hologram over the Pepsi, they have still demonstrated free will exists since they have evidently exercised their ability /capacity to make choices, albeit in this case choices between illusions.

Even if one existed in reality and one was an illusion, they would still have demonstrated their ability to choose. The ability/capacity exists even if there are no real choices.

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

It's often stated in the past tense as "the ability to have done differently"

Ability is not negated by the existence of illuson.

JW




RELATED POSTS


What is the difference between free will and FREEDOM?
viewtopic.php?p=1044638#p1044638

[Miles]

First of all, the alternatives are not true alternatives, only mistakenly perceived options that give the illusion of choice.

Free will is not dependent on whether a choice is real or perceived.

Choice, choosing, picking, selecting, opting, etc. are the hallmarks of free will.

If Coke and Pepsi could sent out holograms of products that did not in reality exist, and a person chose the Coke hologram over the Pepsi, they have still demonstrated free will exists since they have evidently exercised their ability /capacity to make choices, albeit in this case choices between illusions.

Because choosing, chose, and choice don't actually exist it doesn't matter what you suggest may be chosen or not.

ven if one existed in reality and one was an illusion, they would still have demonstrated their ability to choose. The ability/capacity exists even if there are no real choices. Ability is not negated by the existence of illuson.

"Ability" and "capacity" speak to the power to do. And if a thing simply can't be done then there's no ability or capacity to do it. Make sense? Of course it does.



.





JW
[/quote]

[JehovahsWitness]

"Ability" and "capacity" speak to the power to do.

By "speak" I take it you mean by that, that free will is related to the power to do what one has chosen. That may or may not be the case, depending of what is being chosen, but in any case the "power to do" the thing chosen is not an integral part of the choosing. In other words the choice has still been made even if what is chosen is IMPOSSIBLE (see post below: "Can one choose to do the impossible?")



JW





RELATED POSTS

WHAT is free will?
viewtopic.php?p=1044639#p1044639

[JehovahsWitness]

And if a thing simply can't be done then there's no ability or capacity to do it.

Yes, but that is not the case for "free will" since "the thing" in question is --->"the ability to make a choice") <---- and, as we have seen, people do THAT thing (choosing) all the time.

[JehovahsWitness]

CAN ONE CHOOSE TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE?

Of course. One cannot exercise that choice, one cannot make that choice a reality but since the ability to choose is the result of an internal intellectual calculation, entirely independent of its application, anyone with a mind can make such a choice.

If one recognises the impossibility of the options its called fantasy. For example: if you could be any superhero which one would you choose to be? If one does not, its called insanity (or religion depending on ones worldview). Either way, one is still making a choice albeit based on a set of impossible criteria.

Acting on that choice may lead to difficulties for anyone over six.

[Ataraxia]

First of all, the alternatives are not true alternatives

Sure, but then on that level of analysis the "people" you're talking about are not technically anything either, except for blobs of particles governed by the laws of physics that are able to mechanically function in ways that can calculate information, talk to one another, and create complex patterns of art and culture, etc. That is absolutely what humans are on the macro scale, but in a more localized scale we blobs of particles call ourselves "people" and we call this processing of stimuli "thinking" and we perceive this "deciding" between "alternatives" to be "choice."

[Purple Knight]

If God is a manifestation of the principle of good, then no, it has no free will.

In the Narnia books, there's a point where Lucy reads from a magic book and casts a spell to make the invisible, visible. Aslan happens to be in the room, and he poofs up visible. Why, Lucy wonders, should a simple spell affect the mighty Aslan, and he tells her, because he wouldn't break his own rules.

I guess he could break his own rules... but only in theory. But he absolutely, fabsolutely, crabsolutely wouldn't. What if he wanted to? Well, he wouldn't want to, and that's because of his nature. It's because of the part of the universe this God thing is.

That equals no free will.